archiv~1: Re: SETI Anon. Identified?

Re: SETI Anon. Identified?

William E. Mrozinski ( (no email) )
Mon, 02 Nov 1998 21:55:07 -0500

The WebMaster wrote:

> > your being jerked around by this yahoo who needs his ego stroked...
> First off, WE are not being jerked around by anybody. An individual
> posts a possible SETI contact and all I see here is kneejerk rejection.
> Is this due in part to "Paul Dore" not belonging to your
> group/club/whetever?

OK, I was a bit harsh earlier and I apologize for that, but if you have been
following this
steadily you would see that there really is nothing to it. No one is saying
that only
league members ( of which I am not, yet, BTW ) are in the know here. Mr. Dore
advice on his find ( by cracking into the SETI League Argus private list ) and
advised ( reasonably, considering how he approached them! ) that there were
flaws with his presentation, and then was asked to contact league members
directly so that they may discuss the results as provided. Mr. Dore (
assuming that was his
resume! ) declined contact with the League members who were readily willing to
cooperate & instead sought out the public list for 'support' several days
after his initial 'crack'. Mr. Cohen immedieatly de-bunked the provided
results on the public list and that should have been that. Instead, the
hoaxer sought yet further support elsewhere by contacting the tabloids and
ignoring the fact that many worldwide by then were in consenus that the data
had been hoaxed.

> > the press conference aint gonna happen...
> I guess we'll have to see won't we.

> > if it does they will be made the fool...
> Now I see this is something personal between you and this individual
> Paul Dore. Otherwise, your attitude could only be attributed to some
> other odd baggage.

If they hold the press conference they will be made the fool if all they
present is their
current base of evidence. No odd baggage; just a little frustrated that this
guy has
disrupted an otherwise excellent source of info. He was given many chances to
useful help; had he been sincere I think that he would have siezed the
opportunity to
learn with/from others in the field.

> > you really should learn much more about a subject before you blindly
> > believe...
> Um, ok, and what exactly is it you'd like us to know. That there are
> hundreds of billions of stars in this one galaxy of ours, with
> potentially hundreds of millions of planets which might harbor life,
> some percentage of which might be intelligent and send signals to each
> other in the spectrum of various kinds, sort of like humans do?

No question that everyone here must feel that this is possible else why spend
precious time on the endevour. My comment was aimed at obtaining an
as to why others feel strongly that this is a hoax. I reviewed their position
on the
evidence and it seems overwelming to them ( and me for what its worth ) that
the data is forged. It seems unlikely that this could even be an actual
signal that went through the normal process and was mis-read by Mr. Dore ( or
whomever ). Consensus is the data as provided is a complete fake.

> > there is major worldwide concensus that this guy dosen't have a clue,
> Really? "Major worldwide concensus"? Has anyone here bothered to
> actually target E Q Pegasi to see what comes up? If you come up blank,
> there is more data to review.

Early posts were made by people active in the league that they had received
after several days of checking subsequent to the original private list hack.
Do you really
think that anyone in the league with the capability to check have not done so
already! They have...its not there...

> Really, this continual flow of hatred, defensiveness, ietc. is puzzling.

My anger is at the loss of a useful resouce to this mindless defense of a
non-event. I was
learning much more prior to Anon's silly attempt at fooling pros and
semi-pros. The
attention has driven everyone worth following on the list underground. I'm
also a
more than little ticked at anon for being the classic jerk that ruins a good
thing for the
rest just to get some entertainment.

> > or...
> > is geting major jollies jerking people like you around...
> Again, what's with this "jerking around" line. So what if a guy is found
> to be a hoax, isn't that what testing hypotheses and verifiying data is
> all about. Frankly, this alleged find is bringing tons of attention to
> this subject of SETI, much of which will lead to more funding and
> interest. So what gives?

Quite true that the capability to debunk these attempts is crucial to the
and the league ( & Mr. Cohen ) preformed 'above and beyond the call' on their
analysis. The league probably should have came public with all the events of
the days
prior to Anon's public list debut immedieately after he went public. This
would have
saved some mis-understanding and time for others, and I think would have put
stall on Mr. Anon's contacting the tabloids. Is any press good press? I
think that some
here are a bit paranoid about the image of SETI and that it is not considered
real science.
The league and others that have posted here have shown nothing but a very
professional and serious attempt to research this subject. So what if the
media misintreprets messages
from the list. Let them do so and be proven wrong several times and then no
one will
pay attention to these pseudo-journalists. If & when a real signal is then
found and verified, society will notice.

> > just because you want it to be true dosen't mean that you can wish it to
> > be
> > so...
> OK, now you sound like someone intent on disproving all finds, unless
> they are found by you?

No, I'm saying that your zest to want this to be real can not negate the
current body of evdience around this signal. This one is not THE one and no
amount of sincere faith can make this hoax anything but a hoax. It bothers me
that you are not willing to give any
credence to the popular consensus put forth by many known researchers that
anon edivence is fake. I would like it to be real as much as you; I am just
willing to
acknowledge that this is not THE signal based on best evidence.

> > show some hard science why to reconsider this 'carney' or accept the
> > fact
> > that
> > the very people who are best to see through the bullshit have done so
> > and
> > spoken..
> Frankly, we'll wait till Wednesday to make judgments. We'd suggest you
> do the same.

I would welcome on Wed. hard evidence that this is a good hit; that is by
what is being sought here. My harsh words were a poor attempt to 'snap you
of it' so to speak. I realize now that is not my place, but I would encourage
you to
study process being used to analyze signals and then base your future efforts
on helping
with the pre-discovery process ( the 1st step ) instead of concluding that is
real now
and proceeding to step 2 ( the excitement ) prematurely. When the time comes
will appreceiate it all the more!.

> > go lost this hand...
> Rather play blackjack, but with the way you play, I'd rather wait for
> another game to open up, kapeesh?

> Mark

Oh yeah, I get it(g)...I had it coming but could you possibly
have followed
this for the last 10 days and still cut this Mr. Anon any slack. I was really
angry to see
anyone give this guy any encouragement and I vented on you. My sincere
apology to
you and I have learned once again that its impossible to 'tell a drunk when
their drunk'.

( Figure of speech only...No attempt to imply any actual drinking by anyone
mentioned here (g) )

You should believe what you must and so should I, freely.
nuf said...

Bill M.